Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Justice Scalia as claimed both publicly and in his decisions the the Consitution is "dead" has he likes to put it enduring. That is there can be no interpretation that departs from the founders original intent, and that intent is to be narrowly construed. But apparently this is not to be the case when it serves Scalia's own interests in which case the Constitution is as slippery as an eel.

Can you cite for me a written decision of Scalia's that is not based on a strict interpretation of original intent?

Bush bashing itself doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the nosedive that political discourse has taken. Both sides, Reps and Dems, Cons and Libs are responsible for this nosedive. Any kind of personal bashing only shows the lack of argumentative ability and intellectual immaturity on the part of the basher.

scrat wants to raise the bar in these discussions, but has throw in gratuitpus remarks at every turn. Hoc -
p-tooey.

I'm not intimately familiar with the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia (and, I suspect, neither is Scrat), but here at least is a Scalia opinion on the Fifth Amendment that no less an authority than Chief Justice Rehnquist criticized for failing to adhere to original intent. According to Rehnquist, Scalia's "distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements, contrary to its claim, is no better rooted in history than our current doctrine."

If I were, I would just let Acquiunk know whether I thought his (?) opinion had or lacked merit. Since I am not, I asked to ascertain what I might learn, both about Scalia's record AND about whether Acquiunk knew of facts to support his (?) statement.

I appreciate your citation, and after reading the high points, conclude that it in no way shows Scalia ignoring or going against original intent. For one thing, both justices clearly agree that the letter of the Constitution itself does not instruct us sufficiently on the issue of what it means to be able to confront one's accusers, and so both justices are looking to historical legal precedent to discern how to handle this specific question. That they reach different conclusions does not mean that either has chosen to cast intent aside.
Acquiunk claimed that Scalia ignores the very question of original intent when it suits him. I asked for evidence that this statement has merit. While I appreciate the citation as it has increased my knowledge somewhat, it in no way shows Scalia to be ignoring original intent nor does it even consider a decision where it could be argued he'd have motive for doing so. You can argue--as does Rhenquist--that Scalia reached the wrong conclusion based on his view of historical precedent in this matter, but you can't argue (with any basis in available facts) that his decision was based on a desire to ignore original intent due to finding original intent not amendable to his desires. (This was Acquiunk's claim.)

Raise the bar? Oh, you must be referring to my use of complete sentences and actual English words.

Frankly, I'd be happy to lower the bar if I thought it would keep you from scurrying under.

You see? Gratuitous remarks without end.

Of course, your feigned spitting in my direction was what, the height of intellectual debate?

Here's a deal for you... you mind your own manners, and I'll mind mine.

The best example of Scalia's innovative streak is Bush V Gore, where the majority found "unsought responsibility" where none had existed before.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html


" None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront."
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Conner,

There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.
I respectfully dissent.
Souter, J.,

In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.
I dissent.
Ginsburg, J.

I fear that in order to bring this agonizingly long election process to a definitive conclusion, we have not adequately attended to that necessary "check upon our own exercise of power," "our own sense of self-restraint."
I respectfully dissent.
Breyer, J

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
I respectfully dissent.
Stevens, J

Reasons to bash Bush; just heard on t.v. that this administration is not going to let Condi Rice appear before the nine-eleven commission. Secrets? hmm......

ROFLMAO! Acquiunk, please tell me you are joking, right! Either way it's hilarious, but please, please God, tell me you are just kidding!

They found "unsought responsibility"?



Either you are kidding (and I really do hope so) or you just don't understand that phrase as used in that sentence. They aren't claiming to have found "unsought responsibility", they are complaining that the court--in this case--was given a responsibility they had not sought.

Jeeeesus that's funny.

And of course, once again this has nothing to do with "original intent".

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear any particular case. The Court could have simply declined to accept the petition, in fact they do so more often than not.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0051/hentoff2.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0213/p09s02-cods.html

http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2003/102003/10162003/1135651
"Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires," Scalia wrote. "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to [Texas Gov. George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
I've come up empty scouring the Constitution for my right not to be perturbed. In vain, I went back over Article II, which deals with the presidency, looking for a "sunshine clause" saying, "No clouds shall be cast upon the claim of legitimacy of a president." - (from a blog)
Nanny Scalia and four fellow baby-sitters of the right freelanced a temporary suspension of our common-law right to know.

The spitting thing was at the ground, you paranoid guy, you. Mm mm mm.

Yeah, and your need to do it in response to a post I wrote to someone else? Jesus, how old are you?

It seems that political debate on all levels has become a steady recitation of the sins of the party or candidate we oppose. If the discourse isn't expressing pure hatred for a person or a group, it often feels that way anyway.

I wonder what would happen if we concentrated on the direction the country should go and how we might persuade our elected officials to take that road? And how would it turn out if we actually voted for the best qualified candidate instead of the one who isn't the one we despise?

Oh well. After two weeks of major computer woes, it's good to be back.

Foxfyre

I responded to you, scrat. Paranoia runs deep. And wilful mis-interpretations of people's posts. It is this wilfull mis-interpretation makes me doubt your veracity more than the remarks.

EB, i've been convinced for a long time that Shirley there comes to these threads in the hope of stirring up someone's anger. This if a form of entertainment for the squirrelly little thing (note to moderators: yes, squirrelly, look at the avatar). Shirley has developed a style of skirting the edge of violating the TOS, in the hope of sparking an intemperate response. As it rarely has anything of substance to contribute, and is mostly playing that childish little game, it is good to keep this all in mind, and simply be amused by it's foolish antics.

Hope you'll have a good day there in Tejas, EB.

I'm having a wonderful day, set. Don't worry that the paranoid one gets me upset. I'm just having fun on this thread.